M.A.I.L. (Maille Artisans International League) is an international community of artisans and volunteers dedicated to the advancement of the chainmaille artform. We aim to encourage the sharing and spreading of information, archiving as many techniques and weaves as possible.

i would like to see someone try persian box. the problem is, you can't see any of the other sides and so we are left to assume that all the sides are the same. but when i try to make all the sides the same, i come up with dukkha. i can only make persian box if the sides are not the same.

Color coding image
The "cousin" interaction that I was referring to is the green-orange rings. One of them is on top, while the other is below. Alternatively, in one the green ring is touching the pink ring, while the other it is not.

Of course, my coloring might be off. The rings are difficult to follow correctly. Both are 4-rings around meaning they're like Quad Bore Worm and Quad Reinforced Inverted Round without the "not captive" rings. Since they both rotate in alternating directions, they're both close to Quad Reinforced Inverted Round. Dukkha 4 in 1 Chain has that new cousin interaction (orange ring pushing the green ring away from the pink ring). It's clearly visually different, but I don't know how stable that interaction is (or how sensitive to AR is it) without making it.

I don’t agree here mithrilweaver, I believe I can see all the rings and their interactions. However, I can’t get My head around them.

If I had your mind for the interactions, and you saw what I see, I believe we could come to a conclusion. However, vulcan mind melds is sci fi.

I think I made it. Alas, I only had green rings (leftovers from a two-month attempt to get proportions right). Also, the AR is slightly large (at 4.65) so it's a bit looser than I'd have liked.

It's not the same on the top as on the bottom. Here is the bottom. For lack of a better term, the bottom has a "zipper". I've highlighted the "zipper" here.

I built it as I saw it, which was an awful process. I'm not sure (yet) how to extend it as a chain. Basically what I did was make a sheet of consisting of six rows (4 rings in each row) of offset, interlaced rings -- it would have been European 4 in 1 except that the center "1" is missing. I guess that's what the author meant by "a standard 4-in-one rosette with only four links" -- the center ring is not present. Anyway, I made ended up making a sheet in the most unpleasant way possible, then folded the edges towards each other, then used the "zipper" rings to stitch them together.

If it's any help, here is a shot end-on.

I'm sure there's an easier way to do this. Maybe I'll come back to it after I've taken a break and let my reservoir of curse words refills, but I'm not sure I want to.

I'm not sure I see the technical difference from Dukkha yet (despite TrenchCoatGuy's excellent illustration), but obviously the difference ends up with Dukkha looking much more symmetrical and lovely, as opposed to kind of messy. I'm not entirely sure why Persian Box has the word "Persian" in it.

yes, you came up with the same results that i did. i could only make persian box with the sides not being the same (zipper effect). if you make all the sides the same, you have to increase ar and you come up with dukkha. thx for confirming! great work.

JG; I thought the stich would be E4-1, not just straight. There is no evidence of the slant products in lower AR - is that what makes it dukha?

I'm not sure what you're asking, here -- I'm really not knowledgable (yet) about the technical terms & stuff. In the description, he does specifically say "standard 4-in-one rosette with only four links", and I'm taking that to say that the middle ring (the fifth ring) is not in there.

When I first looked at it, it looked like two rows horizontal rows interlaced in a staggered fashion, with two more rows of staggered rings interlaced with those but standing vertically. Then I could see two rows that seemed to be interacting with the vertical rows, but underneath the horizontal rows. Then there seemed to be another two sets of rings interacting with *those*, and those are the "zipper rings" in my version. The last two sets of rings interlace each other.

When I actually put it together, what it ended up being was a sheet of six rows of four, with the outer two folded back under the work and then stitched together with the "zipper rings". If that makes sense. I'd make a video, but I'd have to attempt this again, and I am not excited about that. ; )

I believe what we mean is the ”white parts” touching, should be connected.

Jackalgirl wrote:

Karpeth wrote:

JG; I thought the stich would be E4-1, not just straight. There is no evidence of the slant products in lower AR - is that what makes it dukha?

I'm not sure what you're asking, here -- I'm really not knowledgable (yet) about the technical terms & stuff. In the description, he does specifically say "standard 4-in-one rosette with only four links", and I'm taking that to say that the middle ring (the fifth ring) is not in there.

When I first looked at it, it looked like two rows horizontal rows interlaced in a staggered fashion, with two more rows of staggered rings interlaced with those but standing vertically. Then I could see two rows that seemed to be interacting with the vertical rows, but underneath the horizontal rows. Then there seemed to be another two sets of rings interacting with *those*, and those are the "zipper rings" in my version. The last two sets of rings interlace each other.

When I actually put it together, what it ended up being was a sheet of six rows of four, with the outer two folded back under the work and then stitched together with the "zipper rings". If that makes sense. I'd make a video, but I'd have to attempt this again, and I am not excited about that. ; )

I believe what we mean is the ”white parts” touching, should be connected.

Ah! I get it. And perhaps they are (but without a center ring to make a four-in-one -- it would just be four-by-four, maybe?), but it's hard to see since we have no shot from the back. I can undo and redo -- I might give it a shot later.

The Maille Artisans International League
(M.A.I.L.) and any affiliates thereof will not be held responsible for
any injuries or mishaps in the use or misuse of any information presented
at this website whether intentional or coincidental.

Maille construction is not intended for children
or intended to be taken lightly. Care must be taken at all times, as sharp
hand and power tools may be used, as well as other materials capable of
causing injuries or repetitive stress disorders. Take precautions and
have fun mailling responsibly.